A Slight Delay

Update: an article today (July 2) on the website of the Asbury Park Press reports that the suit against Wikimedia has been dismissed. A story hit the web last evening to that effect, but not having seen anything to corroborate it, I didn’t want to say as much last evening. Read on…

An article in yesterday’s Newark, NJ Star-Ledger highlights a series of lawsuits brought by Monmouth County literary agent Barbara Bauer against no fewer than nineteen websites and web companies. In the opposite corner are, among others, the Electronic Freedom Foundation and Wikimedia, the parent organization of the online open-source encyclopedia Wikipedia, which seek to have the case dismissed.

The crux of Bauer’s case is that criticism on a wide range of websites, some of which have taken on her practices as an agent and others of which have taken a decidedly more personal tack, have eroded both her reputation and her business. If it’s tried, the outcome of the case bids to have consequences far outside the Garden State. (more…)

Those who think that Sam Walton’s spawn needs to be taken down a peg or two will no doubt be heartened by the news of a recent court ruling stating that Georgia native Charles Smith should be allowed to continue selling his Wal-Qaeda and Walocaust T-shirts. Rather than arguing on good taste, Smith had the sense to argue his case on First Amendment grounds; luckily for him, the judge agreed. The irony here is that Smith—whose sales at the time the ruling was handed down had barely broken 60 shirts—has gone, in a couple days time, from relative nobody to minor celebrity. Had Wal-Mart ignored him, it’s likely he would have remained in obscurity. As it is, they’ve given him his fifteen minutes of fame while simultaneously reinforcing a reputation for heavy-handedness.

Not that they needed Smith’s help, mind you. The company is also taking a beating in the news and the blogosphere this week over its countersuit against Deborah Shank (the backstory, if you’re not already familiar, is available here and here). While I will grant that the company technically had a contract, and the law, on its side, I’d also assert that just because something is legal doesn’t make it right. (more…)